Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!ucdavis!ucbvax!cad!hijab
From: hijab@cad.UUCP (Raif Hijab)
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: 65 MPH?
Message-ID: <63@cad.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Feb-86 12:50:41 EST
Article-I.D.: cad.63
Posted: Mon Feb 24 12:50:41 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Feb-86 20:11:25 EST
References: <152@ttidcc.UUCP> <274@hropus.UUCP> <1116@ihlpa.UUCP> <915@dataioDataio.UUCP>
Organization: U. C. Berkeley CAD Group
Lines: 19
Summary: Questionable Fuel-Saving Claim

In article <915@dataioDataio.UUCP>, bjorn@dataioDataio.UUCP (Bjorn Benson) writes:
> >> ... After all, the original purpose of 55 was to save energy.
> >
> >And it has since been proven that statement couldn't be farther from the 
> >truth!  
> 
> Car and Driver did a little research and... 
>    65 mph consumes 13% more fuel than 55 mph in an average automobile.
> 
> 						Bjorn Benson

The milage on my car (a 1975 Volvo) improves with increased cruising
speed up to about 65-70 mph, then falls rapidly, due (I believe) to
change in the properties of the engine OIL as temperature rises. 
I strongly believe the optimum speed for best milage varies widely
depending on car model, year and maintenance history. I am not sure
if Car and Driver's "average automobile" has any relationship to
the population of cars in use.
about 65 mph